You miss my point; and who do you think tackles the root cause of more serious crime? Community police officers of course - who have been decimated by the ideological Tory cuts.

It's nice to see the level of respect you have for the police - "note taking girls and guys in blue uniforms." Classy that.

Community police officers don't sort serious social issues like drug abuse, gang crime or drink driving they are society issues that need innovative high level solutions. You miss the point completely.

Last week I watched a program at abuse of minor by Pakistani men in Rochdale - 3 girls. The police allowed that abuse to go one despite knowing what was going on for years. Not one police officer was disciplined or lost their job - no acceptance they got it wrong. Same goes for Hillsborough etc. When the police stop covering up their mistakes and closing ranks that will be a time to have some respect for the service and how it conducts itself.

TBF SY Police have accepted they made mistakes at Hillsborough.

Is that the same force that had to remove David Crompton because he tried to shift the blame away from the police after the inquest verdict?

I agree entirely. What is your enlightened approach?



An enlightened approach will take investment initially. Enlightenment & investment are not words I would ever associate with the Tories.

Moving on slightly.
The value of the pound has dropped this morning, amid fears of a hung parliament.

Have the Tories taken the electorate for granted, again.

First, it was Brexit, where Cameron was "certain" of victory and now, we have T.May calling a snap election (despite saying many, many times that she wouldn't) and expecting to rack up a huge majority but, it seems that "we (the voters) are having none of it.
Although I'm not a fan of Corbyn, I'm so disenchanted with politics that I would absolutely love to see Mrs May fall flat on her face over this one.
Under the false pretence of needing a "strong and stable" government to carry out Brexit negotiations and having 3 years left in power (and Brexit apparently needs less than 2 years to conclude), the greedy Troies, tried to make a "land grab" for votes and seats from all the other parties.
Thankfully, it seems that the young and apathetic voters have registered to vote in huge numbers, making a Tory majority far less certain.
It's absolutely hilarious and Mrs May could be finding out what life is like down at the local job centre

Corbyn to take the stage in the leaders debate now with May opting to keep her distance. I would say it's a big risk from the PM but judging from her dire performances so far under any kind of grilling she has probably made the right call.

Indeed
She is excellent at delivering a scripted speech but, very weak under pressure (neither strong nor stable

).
However, with most of the other politicians from the left of the political spectrum, apart from the busted flush that is UKIP, there will be a fair amount of consensus coming from the panel, which makes Labour look like the "best" option.
Unless some of the other parties really rip into Corbyn (which is unlikely as they all have "similar" policies), this will be good for Labour.

I think it's important to differentiate between the lessons SYP have obviously learnt from dealing with the incident to the more murky goings on around the cover up and attempts to blame supporters for what happened.

I do know many of the officers to blame for those murky goings on are long gone.

Ukip left of political spectrum!?

Bit of a calculated risk too by Corbyn because the others could all gang up and put boot into the biggest dog present, however, he's seen off Andrew Neil and Paxman in good order so Nuttall, Farron etc should be a cakewalk.

No I don't miss your point - you're just wilfully misinformed, thanks I suspect, to your refusal to waver from the Tory/Daily Mail dogma. Google the Broken Windows theory of crime and disorder - then think again about whether community policing impacts positively on more serious crime.

Your second point is a different one - nobody would deny that there has been corruption and malfeasance in certain forces; it's rather a stretch though to use Hillsborough as an example in support of Mrs May's savage cuts to the police force. Which government (and newspaper) colluded with the corrupt South Yorkshire force, not only over Hillsborough, but also prior to that during the miners strike?

As in sport corbyn seems to be on a roll, certainly the momentum seems to be with him. No pun intended. May and the tories campaign has been abysmal. However it's difficult to compete with corbyns give everybody everything, don't worry the rich will pay. Unfortunately the rich won't pay as under the Wilson government they will bugger off.
Potentially some political volatile situations are likely. Example 1 -hung parliament with labour and snp voting together .
Example-2 no Tory majority, who will represent us in brexit talks. Example -3 labour and snp- plus liberals deciding the time is not right to exit the eu.
Meanwhile thanks to this foolhardy election we are well into the 2 year Eu exit frame, with no meaningful negotiations underway.
I notice all talk of the Labour Party falling apart have disappeared. The pound is thinking of dropping down to parity with the dollar. All this uncertainty and political upheaval does not bode well for Eu negotiations.

I have never used Hillsborough to support the cuts in policing - I used Hillsborough as an example of why I have little respect for the police and their insular behaviour. Their arrogance does them no favours IMO.

With regards to having more community policing perhaps you could explain why crime numbers have been falling in line with reducing policing numbers? I know what you will say - we can all find articles that support our views doesn't validate yours anymore than a article with a polarised opinion.

As with the Cliff Richard debacle SYP do not seem to have learnt any lessons - they may talk the talk but their recent actions suggest they haven't learnt a thing

Just a small point of order.
Although the referendum was 12 months ago, article 50 was only triggered on 20th March 2017 (9/10 weeks ago) and with the German Elections just around the corner (24th September), not much was likely to happen in the first few months.
Who ever puts a government together will take charge of the Brexit negotiations but, as you intimate, they would certainly change direction if the SNP holds the balance of power, which ironically would put the skids under the SNP's dreams of a second referendum for their own independence.

Just repeat "strong and stable", "strong and stable", "strong and stable", "strong and stable" and everything will be just fine

Given that Labour are shockingly threatening that the income tax rate would rise to 45p for earnings above £80,000 and then to 50p in each pound earned over £123,000; where are all these selfish, greedy tax-avoiders going to go? Belarus has pretty low taxation, as do plenty of Arab dictatorships. If they don't want to pay their fair share I am happy for them to sod off. I'd be happy to launch a crowd-funding site to pay their air fare.

So its OK that 63% of what you earn should go to the government - seriously how is that equitable?

You're forgetting the generous tax thresholds, they help everyone

Over £40k you give more to the government than you earn for yourself !! over £80k that's grows 58% of what you earn and over 123k that's 63% - and no personal allowance - that's fair!!

Is that every person employed by SYP who have not learnt their lesson?

It's surely fair that people that can afford to contribute more, do so ?
Also, everyone gets their first £11.5k tax free, although you would have to deduct your taxable benefits (company car, health insurance etc) and then you end up with the dreaded "k" code.

I know that the Tory ethos is to "keep what you earn". However, too many have been doing just that (and big business too) even my business paid more corporation tax than Starbucks and their ilk and that certainly isn't right.???

If everyone gets taxed at 20% those that earn more pay more what is the issues with that?

If you earn over £123k you lose your personal allowance - you seemed to have overlooked that?

Was that Starbucks in the UK or world wide?

Now we have it.
You want the poor guy on minimum wage to leave himself with 10k a year to live on and the guy on £120k to "manage" on £100k.
Absolutely fair, especially when you take our food costs and a couple of kids.

I was referring to Starbuck in the UK that "devolved" its responsibilities to the Netherlands.
Following protests in the UK it has now slightly re organised and is contributing more but, there are many, many businesses doing the same.
Google is one of the largest culprits and moves funds from country to country to dilute and reduce its tax burden.
This may not be illegal but, it's certainly immoral.

Remember we're all in this together.

Those receiving housing benefit have paid the price.
The disabled have paid the price.
The elderly have paid the price.
Public sector workers have paid the price.
The armed forces have paid the price.
Schools have paid the price.
Students have paid the price.
Health workers have paid the price.
Social services have paid the price.
The richest have got richer.

Forgive me if I don't give a flying fu ck whether you or the richest 5% feel it iniquitous to pay some of their gains back. I note you are more affronted by those who can more than afford it having to pay a little more rather than the persecution of the poorest & weakest.

Prior to being semi-retired I was a self employed sub contract industrial electrician earning over eighty thousand per annum.
Even now I could work in Canada , South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Botswana, Dubai. I have paid more than my fair share of tax in this country.
I have also trained several highly skilled engineers and paid for them to attend technical college. So your attitude to me would be to sod off.
It might be unpalatable to you but in this day and age money has wings, companies and people will move to countries which suit them better. Don't forget quite a lot of high earners create employment for workers who inturn pay income tax.
If you use France as an example, high rates of income tax for high earners meant that literally thousands moved to London.
They now pay tax in London, presumably you will be happy to tell them to sod off.